How about New Zealand? Yup. The country that just approved a new three strikes law also faced tremendous pressure from the US. As you may recall, back in 2008, New Zealand politicians tried to sneak through a three strikes law, that would kick people offline based on accusations (not convictions) of infringement. A few months later, mainly due to massive public outcry, the government scrapped those plans and actually promised a complete rethink of copyright laws.

Embassy will continue to stress with GNZ officials
the need for a shorter rather than protracted timeline for
the redraft and will ascertain the details of a notice and
comment period for public submissions once released by GNZ.
During this hiatus we've proposed holding DVC(s) between NZ
and U.S. interlocutors to possibly help with drafting and as
a public diplomacy tool to dispel public misperceptions about
proper role of IPR protection. U.S. agencies have the
benefit of 10 years worth of experience in enforcing the U.S.
Digital Millennium Copyright Act that may serve useful to New
Zealand officials in their effort to implement section 92A.

Yes, you read that right. Not only did the US say it would help write a foreign country's laws, it also planned to use its 10 years of experiences with the failed DMCA (as described by the guy who wrote it), as a guide for how to pass bad legislation in New Zealand.

The cables turned up a few other interesting tidbits from a bit further back, including the fact that a program -- run by the Recording Industry Association New Zealand (RIANZ) to set up a website and get people to snitch on their friends, reporting them as infringers -- was funded by the US government. Yes, the US government handed half a million dollars (New Zealand dollars) to the recording industry to get people to turn in their friends for copying music. Lovely.

Separately, the US warned New Zealand that exceptions in copyright law (including those found in US law under fair use) should not be allowed in New Zealand because:

these exceptions to
copyright protection would send the wrong message to
consumers and undermine efforts to curb unauthorized copying
of CDs in New Zealand. They would cost the industry in
revenue and profits and discourage innovation.

They admit that this info comes from industry lobbyists themselves, but the embassy still seems to think it's valid. This is a complete joke, of course. As many copyright scholars and experts will tell you, it's those exceptions that are important to keeping new content coming and vibrant. The idea that concepts like fair use would "send the wrong message to consumers" is laughable, and the US government shouldn't be pushing such garbage on other countries.

None of this is a surprise, but it is a clear reminder of how much the entertainment industry's completely debunked arguments not only influence US policy on these matters, but they're also pushed by US diplomats on other countries around the globe.

Reader Comments

Shouldn't the consumers be the ones to determine what the right message is? Isn't the government supposed to be for the people?

This is a tacit admission that these laws exist not because the people want them, they do not, but because industry wants them. The government needs to send the 'right message' to the people because the people don't want these laws. I say we abolish these laws.

Oh crap =(

What worries me if that the US can convince NZ then it really truly is only a matter of time before our government here (Australia) jumps on this bandwagon. It's bad enough they still want to filter our internet - a fact which has not made the news in months and months but, as far as anybody knows, is still on the agenda. Not to mention the NBN being limited to 200GB per month. I'm gonna hit "submit" before I start swearing....

Re: uh

Let's be honest. The US is the largest bully in the yard. If we want to take down these interests, it will be by taking down the special govn. interests that they rely on. It's a good thing to report this wound that is hurting society at large. Now, we can make the politicians accountable for this bad behavior. An uphill struggle, true, but when is fighting for freedoms ever easy?

They would cost the industry in revenue and profits and discourage innovation.

They admit that this info comes from industry lobbyists themselves, but the embassy still seems to think it's valid. This is a complete joke, of course. As many copyright scholars and experts will tell you, it's those exceptions that are important to keeping new content coming and vibrant. The idea that concepts like fair use would "send the wrong message to consumers" is laughable

It's not laughable if you're a gatekeeper who wants to hold on to their monopoly.

This is a propaganda war - the fact that they believe that people who engage in culture are "consumers" speaks volumes - culture isn't "consumed", it's *shared* (by definition - if it's not shared, it's not culture.)

While troubling that the US would try to destroy the culture of other countries, this is not really news.

Re:

The U.S. govt grants monopoly power on almost everything, what do you expect? From taxi cab monopolies to broadcasting monopolies, to cableco monopolies, to mailbox delivery monopolies, to electricity delivery monopolies, to patents, to copy protection laws, to just about everything else you can name, the U.S. creates all sorts of restrictions designed to keep competitors out of various markets. Govt imposed monopolies are the backbone of our plutocracy which is why our monopolized media never criticizes them.

Re: Re:

The U.S. is basically turning into Russia, a nation that would go through great lengths to protect its industry with little regard for others. The result, like in Russia, is income inequality, the disappearance of a middle class, which has been an increasingly prevalent occurrence in the U.S. in the last couple of decades as a result of its industry protection efforts.

Re:

"While troubling that the US would try to destroy the culture of other countries, this is not really news."

It's sad enough as it is, that throughout its brief history, that nation has done nothing but expand its borders (literally, as well as figuratively) at the expense of others, but what's even sadder is that most Americans don't really benefit from this. I actually feel sorry for them. Those people who lost their jobs when companies started outsourcing to third-world countries. Those people who had to be sent to Iraq to fight a war that should never have been declared in the first place. Those poor brainwashed people who are rejoicing about the death of some low-life terrorist leader as though terrorism ends with his death.

Some people who are passionately anti-American (we have those here, being one of the countries they invaded) mistakenly lump them all together as one huge evil entity. But a lot of them are just like most of us: part of the taxes they pay with their hard-earned money goes to helping businesses squeeze them even tighter, then convincing them that it's all for their own good.

Re: Re: Re: Re:

Re: Re:

chickwithaninvisibledick: "Those poor brainwashed people who are rejoicing about the death of some low-life terrorist leader as though terrorism ends with his death."

Well, I liked seeing him dead, but I don't think that is the end of "terrorism". How can I get "un-brainwashed" and be as good in this regard as you? And does this mean we should continue with an endless war on "terrorism"?

Ohhhh so thaaaaat's how laws like this make it in! Doesn't that just make you lose complete hope?

Americans wonder why the rest of the world has such a negative attitude towards their country. Maybe, just maybe it has something to do with your country constantly trying to bully and interfere with other countries to suit your own needs. We don't need you waltzing in here trying to dictate draconian BS laws that you wont even pass in your own country, you don't have to live with this crap, we do and it's not welcome. So bug off and mind your own god damn business.

Butt The Hell Out

No quite thank you US of A.
We are quite capable of writing our own laws, thanks awfully much though anyway.
We rather like to have free speech our style not a police state a la` US.
So thanks very much, if you have anything else to suggest toss it in the round basket and please go and look after your own sad outfit.

Butt The Hell Out

No quite thank you US of A.
We are quite capable of writing our own laws, thanks awfully much though anyway.
We rather like to have free speech our style not a police state a la` US.
So thanks very much, if you have anything else to suggest toss it in the round basket and please go and look after your own sad outfit.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

In the last 70 years, they have directly funded:

1) French Resistance (noble, but still terorrists under the US definition);
2) The IRA;
3) Al-Qa'ida (in Afghanistan in the late 80's early 90's.);
4) Hamas (odd, that one).
5) Col. Qadhafi;
6) Saddam Hussein.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

Actually The eejit is probably right, the US and UK between them have caused far more deaths and terror than any non-government sponsored terrorist groups. Just look at the number of deaths in Iraq and Afghanistan. Also, it's very conveniently forgotten that the CIA helped form and fund various groups now classed as terrorist. You should try reading your history a bit more.